Planning group news and news archive
JULY 2007
CHILTERN SOCIETY WELCOMES SCRAPPING OF SECOND RUNWAY
We are very happy to be able to add our voice to campaigners celebrating the announcement by Luton Airport to abandon controversial plans for a second runway and new terminal. The whole of Luton falls within the Chilterns Natural Area, where our work takes place, and we are delighted that acres of precious green belt have been saved, and significant increase in long-term environmental damage and noise pollution prevented.
The new runway would have meant Luton handling as many passengers as Gatwick, and has been scrapped 'for financial reasons'. The Spanish parent company of TBI, the airport operator, still intends to expand the airport within the existing site, and while we recognise the benefits of the potential increased local employment we will be keeping a close eye out for any plans detrimental to the local surrounding area and countryside.
MAY 2005
Three of the four London airports, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, are regulated by the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority). The fourth, Luton, is 'not designated', and is self-regulating. The airport’s non-designation has a particular bearing on night flying operations.
Night Flights
So far in 2005, against abase line of disturbance many find intolerable, there has been a 20% increase, year on year, of night flights, which account for about 10% of the total. As the total number of flights inexorably increases, so night flights can be expected to increase in the same ratio, unless there is enough more strongly expressed public opposition to sleep disturbance to force a cap on it. The figures below will help you calculate the inevitable rise in noise disturbance.
Runways/Taxiways
The airport’s operator, backed by very substantial Spanish capital, proposes to leave the present runway where it is, but to extend the taxiway to its full length, thereby facilitating a considerably increased throughput. Now, as we have said above, using the White Paper as the excuse, airport management has announced its full proposals; these will be of considerable concern to residents around this area, (and the owners of the 15 homes to be demolished), as it would then permit fully laden (and slow climbing) 'jumbos' to land and take off, close to other housing.
This proposal would fulfill the plans of the previous management for two parallel runways, as the existing one would remain fully operational, though it is being stated – and this accords with Government preference – that once the new one is operational, the existing one will only be used in emergency, or when the new one is being repaired.
However, it is difficult to conceive that it will remain unused for long, as it would have to be extended to take the aircraft planned for the new runway, for those special uses.The proposals will require planning consent, so it will be at those stages that we can, and must, oppose the airport’s ambitions. Recently, Alistair Darling, Secretary of State for Transport, visited Luton Airport in congratulatory mode, when he would have been made privy to the plans, no doubt.
If we are correct in drawing these conclusions, and Mr Darling endorses the plan, we, and others, will have our work cut out to prevent it happening. The new plans will make Luton the second largest airport after Heathrow, tripling passenger numbers to 30 million a year by 2020, and capable of the 35 million planned for 2030. Flights would increase from the present 200 a day to 600 a day by 2020. It is intended that there will be a major increase in time for the Olympics in 2012.
Make no mistake, it wouldn’t just be business as usual, it would involve a step change in quantity and type of disturbance, for Luton and district, and for the Chilterns. Tranquility mapping? Forget it! The London TMA describes an area of airspace controlling a conglomeration of airport zones, comprising chiefly the four international airports – Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted – and Northolt and City airports, thus acting as an umbrella to all flights in and out of this area.
Manchester and Glasgow have their own TMAs. They do not control private flying from private aerodromes, as they only control airspace above 2,500 feet. TMAs are all about take-offs and landings, stacking and inter-continental overflights of, mainly, commercial air traffic.
Luton Borough Local Plan
One satisfactory outcome of the Public Inquiry held in Luton is that the Inspector has recognized that the correct yardstick for measuring aircraft noise should be 1999 and not 1984, as in the Local Plan. Aircraft have improved somewhat since 1984, which was in a very noisy period for those living near Luton (BAC 111s were particularly bad, and Chapter 2 aircraft were in regular use in those days, now more or less barred, especially at night). However, with even larger numbers of flights and types of aircraft – the intimidating new 'jumbo', for instance – local residents will have plenty to complain about if Luton’s plans come to fruition. Meanwhile, the impact on climate change (and aviation is uniquely damaging to the upper atmosphere) is being felt, and this may provide a useful weapon against this headlong expansion.
NOVEMBER 2005
The Chiltern Society's Position on DRAFT REGIONAL PLANS for the East and South East Regions.
Early in 2005 the Society submitted separate responses to the Regional Planning consultations conducted by the East of England and South East England Regional Assemblies (EERA and SEERA). The following summarises those responses. Copies of the Society’s full submissions are available by e-mail from the Society's Office.
Main Concern
This is that neither draft plan gives sufficient regard to the special and distinctive character of the Chilterns and the need to protect, explicitly in both plans, the natural and cultural heritage of the wider Chilterns.
In particular, both draft plans ignore or underestimate the following:
• The fact that the wider Chilterns is a natural and historic sub-region in its own right;
• The damage that large scale housing and economic development close to the boundaries of the wider Chilterns could do to the special natural environment of the Chilterns and the sustainability and integrity of the wider Chilterns character area;
• The potential contribution that an unspoilt Chilterns would make (e.g. in terms of quality recreation and tranquillity) to the quality of life for future generations, including the populations of the growth areas and development sub-regions that surround the wider Chilterns;
• The high risk that excessive or ill-considered development in or around the Chiltern heritage towns could irreparably damage the sustainability of their traditional character, on which important aspects of the area's future economic sustainability will depend;
• The special importance of protecting not only designated areas within the Chilterns (such as the Chilterns AONB – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) but also the setting of the Chiltern Hills and the quality of the ordinary countryside that surrounds the area;
• The need for explicit protection of the special qualities of the River Thames Green Corridor through Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, which falls within the Chilterns Character Area defined by English Nature and the Countryside Agency;
• The need for both regional assemblies to adopt planning strategies and policies that consider the wider Chilterns as a whole.
Principal Aim
This is that the South East Regional Assembly and the East of England Regional Assembly should jointly identify the Wider Chilterns area as a Special Policy/Protection Area within which specific policies will apply to ensure the sustainability of its distinctive qualities. In supporting this recommendation, we have pointed out that, in social, economic and environmental terms, there is a high level of interdependence between the Chilterns AONB and the Chiltern heritage towns and open countryside that surround the AONB.
Latest Developments
The Examination in Public of the Draft East of England Plan commenced on the first of November and will run for several months. The Society has submitted additional detailed comments on several of the specific issues to be debated. The Society has also submitted comments to Buckinghamshire County Council on the distribution of proposed housing numbers in Buckinghamshire as part of the South East Plan proposals, objecting in particular to the scale of development proposed to the south of Aylesbury.
We also reiterated our concern that parts of south Buckinghamshire have been included in the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-Region, as part of the South East Plan proposals. With central Government still talking about even higher housing figures for the south-east, we believe this is a hostage to fortune.
JUNE 2001
Note: This Policy should be operated alongside Policy HWI3G: Conversion of Historical Farm Buildings and Farmsteads in the Chiltern Hills (June 2001), written by the Historical Works and Buildings Group (HWBG)
• There should be a presumption in favour of other suitable agricultural or commercial usage unless the Buildings are 'Historical' or 'Listed'. In such cases the HWBG should be consulted before responding, and PFO's should be familiar with the above Policy.
• New business usage proposed for converted farm buildings must meet sustainable development criteria - including good design, contribution to local economy and access to local services.
• Where conversion to dwellings is proposed and appears to be the most sustainable option, the suitability of low cost units should be examined.
• Most Local Authorities have acceptable published policies for conversions based on Government guidance and accept the Chiltern Building Design Guide as Supplementary Planning Guidance. Applications that do not conform are unlikely to succeed and should be opposed, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
SEPTEMBER 2001
Luton Airport
We accept that the national aviation policy and commercial considerations will define the Airport's role. The Society's aim is to monitor future developments and strive to ensure that future impact on the tranquillity and characteristics of the Chilterns is minimised, and the physical growth of the airport is confined within its current perimeter.
1. We oppose any significant expansion of the airport beyond the level of 10 million passengers per annum (mppa), representing 170,000 air traffic movements (atm) at current occupancies, which has been approved in principle by the Bedfordshire County Structure Plan.
2. The Environmental Impact Assessment which will be required for any expansion beyond 10 mppa takes full account of over-flying of the AONB and the settlements therein. Furthermore, it is our policy that any such expansion must accord with the environmental planning of all three counties of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire.
3. We aim to secure the phasing-out of all night operations between the hours of 11pm and 7am except for emergency landings and disaster relief operations.
4. We oppose the extension of the runway and all other incursions into the Green Belt.
5. Our aim is to limit air pollution by discouraging the use of private passenger vehicles and encouraging the use of rail and other public transport facilities by air travellers and the workforce at the airport.
6. We seek to hold the airport to its undertaking that the noise level should not exceed the1984 levels. Noise Abatement Procedures must be strictly enforced. We will press for a policy of local dispersal so that the noise is spread fairly and not concentrated over some settlements or towns exclusively.
7. We will continue to liaise with our members, local and national amenity groups, and with local authorities, so as to make our voice heard.
8. We will attend the London Luton Airport Consultative Committee meetings as an observer and to maintain contacts.
